Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1339

Project Delivery Systems Selection for Capital Projects Using the Analytical
Hierarchy Process and the Analytical Network Process
1 2
Zorana POPIC and Osama MOSELHI
1
Department of Building Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia
University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8;
PH (514) 575-9641; FAX (514) 848-7965; email: z_popic@encs. concordia.ca
2
Department of Building Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia
University 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G; PH
(514) 848-2424 Ext 3190; FAX (514) 848-7965; email: moselhi@cbs-
engr.concordia.ca

ABSTRACT
In this paper, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytical Network
Process (ANP) are compared as methods for determining relative weights of factors
in selecting the most suitable project delivery system (PDS) for capital projects. The
AHP considers the elements of each cluster as only affecting the elements of one
other cluster and being affected by elements of one other cluster, whereas the ANP
considers additional dependencies between elements. In selecting a PDS,
interdependencies among factors of different categories exist, therefore ANP is
considered here for its expected suitability. ANP requires additional effort in
constructing a network and additional judgments. A network was developed by
adding dependencies between specific elements to a hierarchy. Both methods were
applied to a case study. ANP generally favored the factors that influenced additional
elements through network connections. In the example analyzed, the overall ranking
of factors by ANP was not consistent with all the pairwise comparisons, which
reveals a limitation of the ANP. This paper augments the research in evaluating the
appropriateness of AHP versus that of ANP in selecting the most suitable project
delivery system. It provides an example of how the priorities of factors by hierarchy
and by network differ for an actual decision problem.

DELIVERY OF CAPITAL PROJECTS

Selecting the most suitable project delivery system

A project delivery system (PDS) defines the structure of the relationships of
the project stakeholders and general sequence of project activities. The most widely
used PDS’s are design-bid-build, design-build and construction management at risk.
Ibbs and Chic (2011) classify PDS selection methods into four major categories:
guidance methods, multi-attribute analysis, knowledge-/experience-based methods
and mixed method approaches. Guidance methods provide general information about
PDS’s. Multi-attribute analysis includes: (1) weighted sum approaches, (2) multi
attribute utility/value theory (MAUT/MAVT), (3) analytical hierarchical process
(AHP) and (4) fuzzy logic approaches. Weighted sum approaches score PDS’s and
assign weights to selection criteria subjectively. MAUT systems define utility
functions for selection criteria, determine utility scores for PDS’s and assign weights
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1340

to criteria. AHP methods use pairwise comparisons of PDS’s with respect to

evaluation criteria, and amongst the criteria, to determine priorities of the criteria and
of PDS alternatives. Fuzzy logic approaches assign fuzzy membership functions,
rather than numeric crisp values to some of the criteria, to better account for the
linguistic nature of those criteria (Ibbs and Chic, 2011). Utility values of PDS’s may
also be expressed as fuzzy membership functions, (Mostafavi and Karamouz, 2010).
Knowledge based methods utilize documented experience of past cases and expert
knowledge. Mixed methods combine elements of various methods (Ibbs and Chic,
2011).
PDS selection methods may be multi-tiered. A Guidebook for the Evaluation
of Project Delivery Methods, which focuses on transit projects, includes the first tier
that may eliminate some of the alternatives. The second tier evaluates the remaining
alternatives and it may result in a clear choice of one alternative. Otherwise, the third
tier which consists of a risk-based analysis may be applied, (Touran et al 2009). The
Construction Industry Institute (CII) IR 165-2 (2003) describes a method based on
MAUT, in which four to six, out of twenty suggested factors, are used to select
among twelve alternatives of project delivery and contract strategies (PDCS). These
sets of factors and alternatives were established though a survey of 45 owner
organizations and 45 contractor organizations, from twelve industries, and refined
through analysis by the CII research team, (Anderson and Oyetunji, 2004). CII IR
165-2 includes relative effectiveness values (REV) of each PDCS with respect to
each selection factor, on a scale of 0 to 100, which were developed through data
collection and analysis and validated by consensus of 32 experienced project
managers, (Oyetunji and Anderson, 2006). The rating of each PDCS is calculated as a
weighted sum of REV’s of that PDCS for each of the factors considered.

PDS selection using AHP and ANP

One of the principal advantages of the AHP and ANP as multi-criteria
decision methods is a higher level of objectivity in determining relative weights
(priorities) of selection factors. There are several examples of AHP for PDS selection.
Most models have three levels of hierarchy (not including the level of alternatives).
Al Khalil (2002) presented a model with three categories on 2nd level (Project
characteristics, Owner’s needs and Owner’s preferences), 12 factors at the 3rd level,
and a 4th level for comparison of two extreme states of each of the 3rd level factors.
Almazroa (2003) has three categories at 2nd level (Project factors, Owner objectives
and Project parameters), and an expandable number of factors at the 3rd level. Mahdi
and Alreshaid (2005) have seven categories at the 2nd level (1 Owner characteristics,
2 Project characteristics, 3 Design characteristics, 4 Regulatory, 5 Contractor
characteristics, 6 Risk and 7 Claims and disputes) and 34 objectives at the 3rd level.
Ghavamifar (2009), considering transit projects, has five categories at 2nd level (1
Project level issues, 2 Agency level issues, 3 Public regulatory issues, 4 Lifecycle
issues and 5 Other issues), and 24 factors at the 3rd level.
Pooyan (2012) structured a network resembling a hierarchy. There are three
categories (Project related parameters, Agency preferences and Regional parameters)
in the Main criteria cluster, and 14 factors in the corresponding three clusters. The
three elements in the Main criteria cluster also influence each other, which makes that
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1341

system a network rather than a hierarchy. Creative Decisions Foundation (2010)

suggests that, “although many decision problems are best studied through the ANP,
one may wish to compare the results obtained with it to those obtained using the AHP
or any other decision approach with respect to the time it took to obtain the results,
the effort involved in making the judgments, and the relevance and accuracy of the
results.” No previous work was identified that compared the AHP and the ANP in
PDS selection. ANP can account for more dependencies among factors, but it
requires additional effort in constructing a network and additional judgments. The
AHP is simpler to implement in a spreadsheet than the ANP, and it can be more
easily integrated with a database of the PDS relative effectiveness values such as that
of the CII guide, to generate a stand-alone application.

PROPOSED DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (DSS)

The proposed DSS consists of five tiers. Tier 1 evaluates the use multiple
PDS’s on a project. Tier 2 evaluates whether public-private partnership (PPP) should
be considered for public projects, and screens PPP alternatives. Tier 3 screens for
applicable factors and alternatives outside of PPP. Tier 4 may include one or two
processes of multi-criteria analysis (MCA): Process 1 for non-PPP alternatives, and if
PPP is considered, it also includes Process 2 for PPP alternatives. Processes 1 and 2
rank the available PDS’s in order of suitability. Tier 5 value for money analysis
applies if PPP is considered, and evaluates the most suitable PPP and non-PPP
alternatives. This paper concentrates on the Tier 4, Process 1, which expands on a
method developed by the CII (2003). In addition to the twelve PDS alternatives
included in the CII IR 165-2 (2003), the proposed DSS considers three additional
non-PPP alternatives (Design-Negotiate-Build, Owner-Build and Integrated Project
Delivery) to account for current state of practice.
Selection factors were identified from more than twenty literature sources
some of which rely on expert surveys (CII, 2003) and in depth interviews with
industry participants experienced in using various PDS’s (Touran et al. 2009).
Furthermore, case studies were analyzed to identify PDS selection factors. Ten
factors were identified as Key inputs, which can eliminate some of the PDS
alternatives or some of the selection factors (Tier 3). Six of those factors were also
included in the MCA (Tier 4, Process 1). All the factors considered in MCA were
arranged into a hierarchy, which has five levels, with 67 factors at the lowest level as
shown in Figure 1. The 240 REV’s from the CII IR 165-2 are incorporated in the
proposed DSS, and preliminary values for the three additional PDS’s and 47
additional selection factors (765 REV’s) are proposed, which may be adjusted by the
user as warranted.

Hierarchy and network structures

In the proposed DSS, the alternatives are not included in the AHP/ANP
models, but rather, the AHP and ANP are used to determine the relative weights
(priorities) of all the factors. The rating of any PDS represents a weighted sum of the
preference scores of factors and the REV’s of that PDS. Therefore, the PDS’s are not
compared to one another, but rather their REV’s are considered constant for each
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1342

selection factor, not changing from project to project. The factors at a lower level of
hierarchy influence a criterion at the level above, to which they are connected (see
Figure 1). Elements of the hierarchy or network inducing the goal and the criteria or
factors on various levels are referred to as nodes. The hierarchy structure was
developed by clustering the factors into categories and subcategories. Factors that
have the greatest influence on a certain objective or condition were grouped together.
Some factors were identified as representing general ideas and others as representing
specific aspects of those general ideas. For example, factor ‘Legal and regulatory
constraints’ represents a general idea or a category, whereas specific types of
constrains represent factors in that category. Furthermore, categories were clustered
together. For example, two categories ‘Legal and regulatory constraints’ and
‘Political considerations’ were grouped into a higher level category ‘Regulatory and
political considerations,’ as they are more similar to one another than to the other
categories, in the way they affect the decision. Seven major categories were identified
at the highest level of hierarchy: Cost, Time, Relationships and Process, Project
Characteristics, Owner Characteristics and Regulatory and Political Considerations.
Per the AHP theory developed by Saaty (1980), the alternatives are evaluated only
with respect to the factors at the lowest level of their respective branch, i.e. the factors
not influenced by any other factor.
Network structure was developed from the hierarchy, by adding dependency
connections between nodes of the hierarchy. The principle in identifying such
connections was in asking: “Does this factor influence or is it influenced by any other
element, aside from those to which it is already connected in the hierarchy.” For
example factors F20 ‘Facilitate early cost estimates’ and F21 ‘Delay or minimize
expenditure rate’ affect cost but also time. Considering all the factors, sets of two or
more factors that may affect an objective in opposite ways were identified, as their
relative importance could be meaningfully compared. For example F4 ‘Lowest cost’
and F26 ‘Optimize lifecycle cost ‘have opposite effects on F6 ‘Quality and
maintainability.’ In developing this network model, the clusters were kept unchanged.
This means that any new connections that could not be used for pairwise comparisons
(i.e. if there were not at least two nodes from the same cluster influencing another
node) were discarded, since the theory of AHP/ANP allows only the nodes within the
same cluster to be compared. The resulting structure is a network as there are
instances where nodes of one cluster influence, or are influenced by nodes of multiple
other clusters, and nodes within a cluster may influence one another. Additional
connections require additional pairwise comparisons, referred to as ‘network
comparisons.’ They affect the priorities of all elements in the decision network. This
forms a simple network as defined in the AHP/ANP theory without sub networks.
The additional ‘network connections’ are shown in Figure 2. The arrows point from
an element that is being influenced to an element that is influencing. Constructing a
network or a hierarchy relies on an understanding of the problem and involves a
certain level of subjectivity inherent in the AHP/ANP method, (Saaty, 1980).
The structure of a model determines which elements will be compared to one
another. Having created a structure, the task is to make all required pairwise
comparisons. Comparison judgments can be expressed linguistically and converted to
numeric values. AHP/ANP theory assigns these values to a matrix that corresponds to
 Level Chose PDS
1
2
Cost Time Quality Relationships Project Owner Regulatory and political
and process characteristics characteristics considerations

Risk and Avoid Collaborative Project Scope Owner’s Owner’s Owner’s Legal and
3 Integration Function Change preferences Political
reward claims and process environment definition capabilities goals regulatory
considerations
sharing disputes constrains

4 For participation For control

5 RISK AND OWNER’S CAPABILITIES LEGAL AND
COST REWARD SHARING FUNCTION
10 Owner’s staff number and qualifications REGULATORY
4 Lowest Cost 3 Reduce risk or transfer risk to 2 Project complexity 23 Experience with particular PDS and forms CONSTRAINTS
16 Control cost growth contractor 31 Protect confidentiality of contract 35 Third party
20 Facilitate early cost 24 Desired contractual 33 Control construction impact 39 Ability to participate in multiple trade agreements
estimates relationships on operations builder/supplier evaluation 36 Labor unions
21 Delay or minimize 55 Opportunity to partner 47 Security 59 What feels comfortable to the owner 37 FTA/EPA
expenditure rate 60 Avoid conflict of interest 64 Complexity of decision making regulations
PROJECT
26 Optimize lifecycle cost 68 Apportion risk equitably and 83 Owner’s experience with design,
ENVIRONMENT
40 Multiple funding sources share rewards
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014

15 Availability of appropriate construction and project type POLITICAL

TIME
1 Shortest schedule
7 Control time growth
30 Promote early
procurement
38 Amount of overlap of
design and construction that
80 Desire for single point of CONSIDERATIONS
contractors
responsibility for design and OWNER’S PREFERENCES FOR PARTICIPATION 14 Competition
construction 28 Stand alone project or part
of a capital development 18 Small business
17 Maximize owner’s involvement impact
AVOID CLAIMS program
25 Minimize owner’s involvement 19 Stakeholder/
AND DISPUTES 69 Market conditions
OWNER’S PREFERENCES community input
5 Minimize number of contracted FOR CONTROL 45 Ability to award
CHANGE

Figure 1. Hierarchy structure

is feasible
QUALITY
6 Quality and maintainability
22 Sustainable design and
construction, LEED
certification
48 Design expectations of the
owner
70 Owner/user satisfaction
71 Utility and functionality
72 Constructability
parties contracts based on
27 Minimize adversarial 13 High likelihood of change 8 Maximize owner’s controlling role
29 Shifting roles and responsibilities best value
relationships 41 Low likelihood of change 46 Domestic or
42 Capitalize on familiar 43 Minimize owner’s controlling role
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS 54 Take advantage of and strengthen international firms
project conditions or teams
73 Effective communication existing relationships
74 Collaboration of project team 56 Ability to prequalify project team
75 Trust and respect SCOPE DEFINITION 57 Ability to prequalify subcontractors KEY
76 Alignment of objectives 9 Capitalize on well defined scope An arrow means that the
OWNER’S GOALS
32 Efficiently utilize poorly defined element above is
34 Agency goals and objectives
INTEGRATION scope connected with every
78 Owner’s vision
12 Need/desire for builder input element in the cluster.
79 Desire to gain market position
during design
84 Encourage innovation Underlined are factors
from CII IR 165-2 (2003).
1343
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1344

Figure 2. Network relationships

the structure of the model. Priorities are obtained by “raising the matrix to arbitrarily
large powers and dividing the sum of each row by the sum of elements in the matrix,”
(Saaty, 1980). Software, such as Super Decisions, automates the AHP/ANP matrix
calculations. The inputs are, first the structure of the hierarchy or network, including
all the elements and their dependency connections, and then the pairwise comparisons
between elements. The outputs are relative priorities of the elements.

CASE STUDY: MIAMI INTERMODAL CENTER CORE, PHASE 1 –

RENTAL CAR FACILITY AND RELATED STRUCUTRES

Project description
Selection of a PDS for a project encompassing portions of Miami Intermodal
Center (MIC) Core, Phase I was studied by Minchin, Thakkar and Ellis (2007). The
project includes a rental car facility (RCF) building, foundations, underground
utilities and bridge, terminal access roadways, tunnels and bridge, the stations for
two transit systems – Tri-rail (a local rapid transit system) and the MIA Mover
(people mover connecting the MIC with the airport), and MIC/MIA Guideway
Foundation. The estimated cost of this work was $230-$250 million.
The owner, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) did not have
experience with all available PDS’s, but was willing to explore a new PDS, even if
that meant overcoming certain regulatory constraints. FDOT had experience with
construction projects but not with all the project types (vertical construction) that this
project incorporated. Aside from FDOT, numerous other public and private parties
had interest in the project and the project funding came from multiple sources.
Elevated fuel distribution centers on every floor of the RCF were to be used for the
first time in the U.S. The appearance and the experience of the public spaces were
very important as this facility would be part of the first impression of Miami and the
U.S. to many visitors.
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1345

The criteria important for PDS selection were owner’s control of design,
ability to meet or exceed schedule requirements, highly qualified contractor, highly
qualified designer, budget/cost control, project team formation and constructability
input to the design (Minchin, Thakkar and Ellis, 2007). In addition, from the
explanation of the PDS selection it can be understood that the ability to overlap
design and construction was valued. The decision maker sought to reduce the risk to
the owner but also to minimize the risk for all parties and to foster non-adversarial
relationships. For this public owner, it was important that all the construction work
would be bid competitively, but that the trade contractors were pre-qualified. A
mechanism to share savings between the owner and the main contractor was
instituted. Ability to handle change and the unexpected was important. (Minchin,
Thakkar and Ellis, 2007)

Implementation of proposed DSS

The implementation of the proposed system is described starting from Tier 3.
Based on the Key inputs, project delivery systems that include linear sequence of
design and construction, those that limit owner’s control of design, and those
unsuitable for large and complex projects were eliminated. The remaining alternatives
are Construction management at risk (CMR), Traditional (design-bid-build) with
staged development, Fast track, Design-negotiate-build and Integrated project
delivery (IPD).
Based on Key inputs, the following selection factors were eliminated: F3, F9,
F25, F41, and F43. Also, the following factors were removed as non-applicable based
on the information about the project: F22, F46, F54, F69, and F80. There were 57
factors remaining in the decision criteria. The two models, a hierarchy and a network
were then applied. The network model included the same comparisons as the
hierarchy model and several additional comparisons. The judgments for the
comparisons common to both models were kept identical. The priorities of the factors
were obtained from the Limit Matrix (Saaty, 2003) generated by the Super Decisions
software, from both the hierarchy and network models. From each model, the
priorities of the same 57 factors (factors on the lowest level of any branch of the
hierarchy model) were extracted and normalized so that they sum to 1.
The resulting rankings of the factors are summarized in Table 1. The 22
highest ranking factors which account for 80% of all the priorities are shown. Table
2 shows the corresponding ranking of the PDS’s. Table 1 indicates that there are
significant differences in the ranking and priorities of the majority of the selection
factors between the two methods. The steepness of the lines connecting the rows
corresponding to the same factors illustrates the differences in ranking. The three
highest ranked factors by AHP are F7 Control time growth, F48 Design expectations
of the Owner, and F16 Control cost growth, and by ANP – F20 Facilitate early cost
estimates, F48 Design expectations of the owner and F72 Constructability. Among
the 22 highest ranking factors, the two methods had 19 factors in common.
In the ANP, 17 factors participated in the network relationships. 13 of those
17 factors are among the 22 highest ranking factors by ANP. Eleven of these 13
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1346

Table 1. Ranking of selection factors by hierarchy and by network

Hierarchy Network
Factor Factor
rank Factors Priorities rank Factors Priorities
1 7 Control time growth 0.1037 1 20 Facilitate Early Cost Estimates 0.0930
2 48 Design expectations of the Owner 0.0792 2 48 Design expectations of the Owner 0.0722
3 16 Control cost growth 0.0633 3 72 Constructability 0.0554
4 13 High likelihood of change 0.0578 4 16 Control cost growth 0.0525
5 40 Multiple funding sources 0.0507 5 7 Control time growth 0.0519
6 2 Project complexity 0.0435 6 26 Optimize Lifecycle Cost 0.0482
7 1 Shortest schedule 0.0414 7 13 High likelihood of change 0.0480
8 6 Quality and maintainability 0.0345 8 40 Multiple funding sources 0.0421
9 12 Desire for builder's input in design 0.0327 9 6 Quality and maintainability 0.0418
10 70 Owner/user satisfaction 0.0319 10 71 Utility and functionality 0.0397
10 71 Utility and functionality 0.0319 11 2 Project complexity 0.0361
12 38 Amount of overlap or design and construction that are feasible 0.0311 12 12 Desire for builder's input in design 0.0324
13 20 Facilitate Early Cost Estimates 0.0299 13 4 Lowest Cost 0.0272
14 4 Lowest Cost 0.0243 14 70 Owner/user satisfaction 0.0264
15 35 Third party agreements 0.0240 15 21 Delay or minimize expenditure rate 0.0244
16 28 Stand alone project of part of a capital development program 0.0226 16 35 Third party agreements 0.0199
17 30 Promote early procurement 0.0211 17 1 Shortest schedule 0.0193
18 27 Minimize adversarial relationships 0.0193 18 28 Stand alone project of part of a capital development program 0.0187
19 33 Control construction impact on operations 0.0167 19 27 Minimize adversarial relationships 0.0160
19 47 Security 0.0167 20 33 Control construction impact on operations 0.0138
21 26 Optimize Lifecycle Cost 0.0160 20 47 Security 0.0138
22 32 Efficiently utilize poorly defined scope 0.0144 22 14 Competition 0.0137

Table 2 . PDS ranking by hierarchy and by network

Hierarchy Network
Rank PDS # Rating PDS PDS # Rating PDS
1 15 72.8 Integrated Project Delivery 15 71.9 Integrated Project Delivery
2 6 62.9 CM @ Risk 6 61.5 CM @ Risk
3 12 60.0 Fast Track 12 57.4 Fast Track
4 13 50.8 Design-Negotiate-Build 13 52.3 Design-Negotiate-Build
5 10 42.1 Traditional with staged development 10 41.4 Traditional with staged development

factors, including the top three factors by ANP, influenced an additional element,
whereas four of those 13 factors were influenced by an additional element. Two
factors had both types of network relationships. By analyzing the changes in ranking
and priorities of factors, having introduced network connections, it was found that 9
out of 14 factors that influenced one additional element directly, and 6 out of 9
factors that influenced only one element, but which element in turn influenced an
additional element through network connections, had higher or equal ranking and
higher priorities in network than in hierarchy. On the account of this, priorities and
rankings of all the remaining factors were lower by network than by hierarchy, except
for one factor that had equal ranking and lower priority by network than by hierarchy.
Four factors that had the greatest percentage gain in priorities accounted for 76% of
the overall gain in priorities and had an average gain in ranking of 17 places. Those
were the factors F72, F20, F26, and F14. Their respective rankings were 24, 13, 21
and 42 by AHP and 3, 1, 6 and 22 by ANP. A set of conditions unique to these four
factors was that each influenced one additional element through its network
connection, was judged as more important than its counterpart in the respective
pairwise comparison, and was not influenced by any additional element.
A measure of consistency of the two methods is to compare the overall
ranking of the factors to their ranking within clusters, which results directly from
pairwise comparisons. It was found that, in the AHP, the ranking order within clusters
was preserved in the overall ranking, whereas in the ANP this was not always the
case. The greatest discrepancy was for cluster ‘Cost.’ The ranking was F16, F40,
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1347

F20, F26 and F21 within the ‘Cost’ cluster and in the overall ranking by AHP,
whereas in the overall ranking by ANP the ranking was F20, F16, F26, F40 and F21.
Therefore, the ANP ranking did not reflect all the judgments expressed, which reveals
its limitation compared to AHP. Table 2 shows that the resulting ranking of the PDS’s
is the same by the two methods, and ratings of PDS’s are very close. Integrated
Project Delivery ranked first, followed by Constructions management at risk and Fast
Track. Since the REV’s did not change, this indicates that the system may have low
sensitivity to factors priorities and that it might favor those highest ranked PDS’s over
the others. Further sensitivity analyses should be performed to explain this result.

CONCLUSION
Proposed DSS for selecting the most suitable project delivery system for
capital projects is presented and illustrated through a case study. AHP and ANP were
compared as methods for determining relative priorities of selection factors. The
network was developed by adding meaningful connections to the hierarchy, based on
the project characteristics. As expected, the ranking and priorities of selection factors
were different for the two methods. The ANP favored those factors that participated
in network connections by influencing additional elements. The factors that were
judged as more important in the additional network comparisons, but were not
influenced by additional elements through network, had the most significant increase
in priorities and ranking by ANP as compared to AHP. Similar effects could be
expected for other network connections, but these findings cannot be generalized
without further studying this and other examples. AHP preserves the ranking of
factors established though pairwise comparisons within clusters. In this example of
ANP, some of the rankings within clusters were overruled in the overall ranking, as a
result of additional network-specific judgments. This indicates that ANP may have a
greater potential for inconsistency. The AHP is simpler to implement without special
software and to integrate with a database of the PDS relative effectiveness values
into a stand-alone application. The resulting ranking of project delivery systems was
the same by both methods; IPD 1st, CMR 2nd and Fast track 3rd. The sensitivity of
the system should be further examined to check whether it is balanced with respect to
various PDS’s. The contribution of this paper is the comparison of the relative
priorities of the same set of factors, by AHP and by ANP, applied to a real decision
problem and in examining the effects of additional network connections on the
priorities and ranking of factors. Future work should examine the impact of
constructing other networks for the same project while using the same set of factors
in the selection criteria, and study other similar examples

REFERENCES

Al Khalil, M. (2002). “Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, Issue 6, pp. 469–474.
Almazroa, D. (2003). “Project delivery system decision framework using the
weighting factors and analytic aierarchy rrocess methods.” PhD thesis, School
of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania, USA.
Anderson, S. and Oyetunji, A. (2003). “Selection procedure for project delivery and
contract strategy”, Proc., Construction Research Congress: Wind of Change:
Construction Research Congress 2014 ©ASCE 2014 1348

Integration and Innovation, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, March 19-21,

2003. pp 1-9.
Construction Industry Institute (CII), Project Delivery and Contract Strategy
Research Team, (2003). “Implementation resource 165-2, Owner’s tool for
project delivery and contract strategy selection user’s guide.” Second Edition,
University of Texas at Austin.
Creative Decisions Foundation, Decision, making with dependence and feedback,
(2010). “The analytic network process for decision-making” posted Sept. 15
2010. <http://www.superdecisions.com/umbrella-rides-the-wind/> (May 21,
2013)
Ghavamifar, K. (2009). “A decision dupport dystem for project delivery method
selection in the transit industry.” PhD thesis. The Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts.
Ibbs, W. and Chih, Y., (2011). “Alternative methods for choosing an appropriate
project delivery system”, Facilities, Vol.29, No. 13/14, pp527-541.
Mahdi, I. and Alreshaid, K. (2005). ”Decision support system for selecting the proper
project delivery method using analytical hierarchy process,” International
Journal of Project Management, 23, 564-572.
Minchin, E., Thakkar, K. and Ellis, R. (2007). “Miami Intermodal Center -
introducing “CM-at-risk” to transportation construction”, edited by Molenaar,
K. and Yakowenko, G., Alternative Project Delivery, Procurement, and
Contracting Methods for Highways. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA, USA.
Mostafavi, A. and Karamouz M. (2010). “Selecting appropriate project delivery
system: fuzzy approach with risk analysis”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 136, No 8, pp. 930.
Oyetunji, A. and Anderson, S. (2006). “Relative effectiveness of project delivery and
contract strategies”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 132, No 1, pp. 3-13.
Pooyan, M. “A model for selecting project delivery systems in post-conflict
construction projects.” Master of Applied Science thesis, Concordia
University, Montreal.
Saaty, R. (2003). “Decision making in complex environments. The analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) for decision making and the analytic network process (ANP)
for decision making with dependence and feedback.” Super Decisions.
Software for Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback.
<http://www.superdecisions.com > (February 18 2012).
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource
allocation, McGraw-Hill International Book Co.
Touran, A., Gransberg, D., Molenaar, K., Ghavamifar, K., Mason, D., and Fithian, L.
(2009).Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 131. “A guidebook for
the evaluation of project delivery.” Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., USA.